Survivor Portland Bureaucracy: Tribal Council No. 2
The tribe has spoken, loud and clear, in the first-round balloting in Survivor Portland City Hall: Bureaucracy Edition. Zari Santner, director of the Parks and Recreation Bureau, was the clear-cut choice for the first agency head to leave the game. Apparently the tribe was unhappy with a secret alliance she had formed, and a plan that the alliance had hatched to sell off part of the island before the other tribal members knew what hit them. An attempt at mediation just made matters worse.
Zari's torch has been extinguished, and she is to leave the island immediately. She will, however, be contacted by Homer Williams's development firm in Los Angeles, where she'll be offered a nice compensation package.
That leaves 16 bureacrats in the running for the Ultimate Survivor, and given the lack of a mention of any of them by Nigel Jaquiss, Phil Stanford, or Randy Gragg in yesterday's media, none of them have immunity today. (Stanford did mention the real, TV version of Survivor, but that doesn't do any of our contestants any good.)
So let's move right along, readers, with Tribal Council No. 2. Vote another one of the city bureau directors out of the picture. Do it for any reason, or for no reason, but do it just once a day, please. (Was that some ballot-stuffing last night by people at home who had already voted at work during the day? Tsk, tsk.) We'll keep at this, every city workday, until only one bureaucrat survives. If you're stumped, remember that photos of the entire cast (except one camera-shy member), and links to each of their bureaus, are here.
| Posted at 1:51 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (10)
Bye bye Bruce.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | May 2, 2007 8:48 AM
This is too much fun.
Posted by DB Cooper | May 2, 2007 10:41 AM
My first choice to dis was PDOT's Susan Keil. So who's next? I think Susan Anderson who heads up the feel good but bloated bureaucracy over at sustainable development. Those 30 plus people are funded mostly by fees (taxes) on garbage. Let's replace her with someone who can help us be truly sustainable without a big bureaucracy.
One I would keep is Gil Kelly of Planning. What they do will always offend some but I think he's fair, professional and wise in his actions.
You might ask why I've voted against two Susans. Absolute coincidence.
Posted by Don | May 2, 2007 10:48 AM
Here's a question:
Is the intention to vote the bureau of the island or the bureau director?
Because the way the responses are, it's mixed.
A suggestion for the future would be to split the polls--you're voting off either the bureau or the individual.
Posted by City Employee & Person | May 2, 2007 11:59 AM
A problem is that most readers would never have enough information to distinguish between the two, at least for most bureaus. So, as we say, vote 'em off for any reason, or no reason. It's just a game.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 2, 2007 12:01 PM
I keep forgetting it's just a game, damnit!!! Har
Posted by City Employee & Person | May 2, 2007 1:29 PM
Gil at Planning may be a nice guy, but he sure doesn't speak up for the different viewpoints about planning issues. Example, SoWhat: after being an advocate of the four Standards to mitigate the height/density issues of SoWhat, just six months after the passage of the SoWhat Agreement by Council, he sat back and let his Planning Bureau advocate on behalf of Homer and Co. the removal of all four Standards. This increased density by another 25% beyond the FAR downtown density of 12:l.
You haven't even yet seen the density, height that can occur in SoWhat just with the four buildings so far built/under construction. 57 buildings are possible just like what is there now-and that is only in the Central District of SoWhat. I remember Gil telling Mayor Katz that there would only be about THREE buldings in the 250 to 325 ft height range at a city council hearing. Its all on tape and transcription. Nice guy but clueless.
Posted by lw | May 2, 2007 4:23 PM
he sat back and let his Planning Bureau advocate on behalf of Homer and Co
THAT is a policy decision made at the elected official's level.
Some days I swear there IS going to be a new Bureau of Homer Williams.
Posted by Frank Dufay | May 2, 2007 6:06 PM
There already is. It's called Sam Adams.
Posted by Jack Bog | May 2, 2007 8:29 PM
Just because something is a "policy decision made at the eleced official's level" doesn't mean that a planning director doesn't speak up about planning basics that might be different from the "policy". That may be alturistic, but that is what we need more of from your professionals. An example for SoWhat are the transportation issues. Gil could have atleast questioned the premise that 40% of traffic would use mass transit in SoWhat. He could of questioned how doubling the trips (remaining after assuming 40% transit ridership)using Macadam would not create traffic problems for the state highway as PDOT claimed. A reasonable planner would do such, and it should be without worry of losing a job. And if you do, that is integrity.
Posted by lw | May 2, 2007 10:02 PM